SUSTAINABLE REMEDIATION FORUM UK MEETING MEETING NOTES 18th March 2009
New Connaught Rooms, LONDON
Attending: Natalyn Ala Atkins Global Stuart Arch Worley Parsons Alan Baker EESI Contracting Paul Bardos R3 Brian Bone Environment Agency Genevieve Boshoff Sirius Richard Boyle Homes and Communities Agency Frederic Coulon Cranfield University Lisa Crews Environmental Protection UK Andy Cundy Brighton University Cheryl Davies Delta Simons Raymond Dickinson MOD Bridget Durning Oxford Brookes Kevin Eaton ENVIRON Chris Evans Arcadis Frank Evans National Grid Properties George Evans Soilfix Limited Jane Garrett CL:AIRE Euan Hall Land Restoration Trust Nicola Harries CL:AIRE Tom Hayes Ecologia Environmental Ian Heasman Taylor Wimpey Hosne Jahan Environment Agency Celia Kingston ERM Aleksandra Koj Cardiff University Joanne Kwan CIRIA Doug Laidler SAGTA Alex Lee WSP Stéfan Le Roy Jacobs Richard Lord Uni of Teesside Cecilia MacLeod Arcadis Talib Mahdi Cardiff University Hugh Mallett Buro Happold Ltd Nick Marks London Borough of Newham John Moritz Cobbetts Adrian Needham Golders Richard Owen Arup Guy Pomphrey DEC Warren Pump URS Garry Preece Azko Nobel Mike Quint Arup Mark Rolls Homes and Communities Agency
Duncan Sanders Davis Langdon LLP (for EIC) Philippa Scott Shell Jonathan Smith Shell Mark Stevenson URS Christine Switzer University of Strathclyde Catherine Thums Wardell-Armstrong Philip Waine DEFRA Graham Whitaker N H B C Lucy Wiltshire Honeywell Mike Wilyman Grontmij Peter Witherington RSK
Welcome Nicola Harries (NH) (Project Director of CL:AIRE) gave a warm welcome on behalf of CL:AIRE to everybody and thanked them for giving up their time today. She explained that SuRF UK is an important initiative for CL:AIRE and thanked Housing and Communities Agency for providing the funding to allow them to do this. She also thanked the Steering Group for all their hard work, as the progress that will be shared today is due to many hours of their commitment. There is a very broad audience again of policy makers, regulators, consultants and contractors, researchers, and site owners. There is in excess of 50 people with many who have attended all four meetings demonstrating the interest in the subject. She went on to say that the meeting today will see the results from a meeting CL:AIRE hosted back in June 07 titled : “Sustainable Remediation” where a number of attendees today shared their ideas of what they thought sustainable remediation was and helped form an action plan for CL:AIRE to take forward. The progress will be demonstrated with the presentation of the final draft framework. NH finished off with reminding the forum that SuRF UK is aiming to assist the contaminated land/remediation & brownfield sector to seize this opportunity and embrace the framework and demonstrate to other sectors how collectively we have developed an effective robust framework to allow the assessment of sustainability of soil and groundwater remediation. She handed over to Mark Rolls the chair for the day. Format for the Day, Rules of Engagement and Commitment Mark Rolls (MR) described the objectives for the day and how the day would proceed in line with the agenda. There would be a series of presentations and plenty of time for discussion and feedback. MR explained that there was a good cross section of people present from practitioners, academics, NGOs and government, and many of the individuals had been to earlier meetings that CL:AIRE had organised. MR explained that the meeting would be held under Chatham House Rules, that there should be a spirit of sharing but people should be respectful of commercial concerns. Everything discussed should be as transparent as possible and that people should be able to ask obvious and simple questions. It was also stated that any input and views given at the meeting was individuals input and not that of their companies. All information about this meeting and subsequent meetings will be put up onto the CL:AIRE website and any queries relating to SuRF UK should be co-ordinated through Nicola Harries at CL:AIRE. MR handed over to NH to explain the Ice Breaker: Examples of most unsustainable remediation schemes. She reminded people that an email had gone out previous to the meeting to ask people to share with the rest of the audience the most “unsustainable” examples of remediation that they had encountered. A number of people shared examples. The best examples judged by the Steering Group won a prize. Programme for the Day A series of presentations were given which are included in Appendix 1. They included: 1. Nicola Harries (NH) of CL:AIRE presented on “Progress from last meeting” 2. Richard Boyle (RB) of HCA presented on “Conceptualisation of SuRF UK framework – How the framework fits into policy”
3. Frank Evan (FE) of National Grid presented on “Final Framework – presentation of framework with worked examples” 4. Jonathan Smith (JS) of Shell Global Solutions presented on “Summary of Final Draft Documentation” 5. Paul Bardos (PB) of r3 Environmental presented on “SuRF Phase 2 including potential research areas” Discussion and feedback provided after the presentations There was extensive discussion at two points in the day. Initially after the first three presentations and then at the end of the day. These are summarised below: It was agreed that communication and involvement of many different parties is important and good to see that SuRF UK are looking to engage with the planning community. People felt that it was interesting to see reference to Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) and to see how SuRF UK framework could be linked in. This was welcomed as it was felt that the Code for Sustainable Homes ignores the value of land. It is really important that when the CSH is updated that land is not ignored. Most development occupies a piece of land for 60-100 years, this needs to be reflected in the sustainability references. The status of land must be raised and given a measure/value. Important to understand how to value land not just economically. If only use economic measurement then this is nonsense and false accounting. There needs to be a value for good soil. Land often is valued as a negative but should not be, good soil is worth a lot as it is a finite resource. It was felt that the industry should take the long term view when considering the sustainable use of soil. Metrics should be for long and short term use, with a value for the longer preservation of soil functionality. Important to get people to embed their decisions in their thought process. Carbon footprint is just one indicator. Important not to get sidetracked, it would be easy to follow easy route, important SuRF UK Framework does not do this. Resource utilization, impacts on the built environment and visual effects all need to be considered. Each project needs to identify what is important as it will be different for each, but useful to have a list of possible indicators. An example was shared of some work that CABE Space has undertaken. The case study had looked at a case study looking at the value of an urban park through added value by society and public benefit. If the park had been valued by just its land value it had negligible value however when it looked at the extra parameters of societal benefit and public benefit the value was extremely great, therefore it shows the benefit of putting true values to land and not just economic. Important to link to the planning process. If linked to the planning process then the use of the framework can be used to influence policy and Planning Policy Statements that are used at a local planning stage, Action Plans and input into planning authorities. At Planning Stage, neighbours are engaged with. It may be possible to use the framework to discharge planning conditions. It was highlighted that the majority of the ice breaker examples demonstrated that the reason that they were examples of “Poor Sustainability Practice” due to lack of communication between stakeholders. It demonstrates that communication is key to bring together a sustainable strategic plan. Thames Gateway had developed a “Global Remediation Strategy” . Vitally important that weighting factors are not applied. Balanced rational set of metrics are important to be established with sensible professional judgement. Got to have an ability to evaluate options with documented decisions. The framework document will give a sense of assurance and demonstrate that issues have been examined by various stakeholders. Questions were asked about where will the framework go? What extent do the metrics influence the wider agenda? How do we use the framework to influence the discussion on the use of Brownfield as apposed to Greenfield or visa versa. Are the metrics going to be broad, scientifically driven or politically driven? It was felt that when stakeholders were engaged that they should be fully briefed and technically versed. If they were not technically versed then it should be the responsibility of the professionals to ensure that stakeholders truly understand implications. This is true stakeholder engagement. Too often stakeholder engagement is superficial as too much technical terminology is used.
It was agree that the SuRF UK Steering Group should be delighted in the progress that has been made and to get the framework out even if 95% complete. Important not to try and perfect before getting out and being used. The work that SURF US was referenced and asked what was different to the UK work. It was stated that the main difference at this stage is that US are promoting Green Remediation which is progressing well. It is more limited in scope, UK work is much broader. There was discussion on weighting and skewing. Some felt that there needed to be some form of weighting which helped set boundaries. The overarching message from the attendees to Government is that soil and land is important and must be robustly considered. SuRF UK to include this in the framework report. It is important to get this message embedded in the minds of policy people sooner rather than later as land and soil is finite and is the future and needs to valued and protected. For sustainability to be a success people needed to not live in “SILOs” and to engage with each other as early as possible. It was suggested to use the framework as a platform to break down barriers between professionals who work in different areas on the same project. It was agreed that a template would be developed with a list of criteria indicators which people could use as a checklist. SuRF UK thanked everyone for their contributions to the work that the Steering Group had presented. SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS It was confirmed that SuRF UK needed to develop the indicators/metrics next. Key indicators should be identified initially. Important that SuRF UK lobby government to ensure that policy makers are aware of the ambitions of SuRF UK and that policy starts to value soil in a robust and transparent way. It was agree for SuRF UK to present the framework to the next National Brownfield Forum meeting where it was confirmed that CLG will be inviting their Planning Colleagues to attend. SuRF UK will be sending the final draft framework document out to those individuals who indicated an interest in reviewing the framework before open public consultation. SuRF UK will be requesting case study examples from those individuals who indicated interest in supplying these. The request would go out for good and bad case studies as you can learn a lot from bad case studies as well. The case studies should be descriptive rather than judgemental. It was confirmed that there was an appetite for CL:AIRE to continue with the SuRF UK initiaitive. SuRF UK should investigate potential research opportunity through EPSRC next SUE Call. SuRF UK needs to co-ordinate with HCA the potential to reference the SuRF UK framework in the redrafting of the Code for Sustainable Homes. SuRF UK to look at the possibility of linking the framework with BREEM. SuRF UK will look at developing training stakeholders with potential online training pack for non technical and technical people. It is important to have feedback loops within the framework document so that as the framework develops and evolves it gets updated. CLOSE Mark Rolls thanked everyone for their time and feedback and for providing their thoughts on how SuRF UK should move forward with this very important initiative.
SuRF UK Open Forum Meeting
AGENDA
18th March 2009
10.00 – 10.45 Registration & Coffee
10.45 - 10.50 Welcome Jane Garrett CEO, CL:AIRE
10.50 - 11.00 The format for the day, rules of engagement and expected commitment
Mark Rolls, Chair
11.00 – 11.15 Ice Breaker: Examples of most unsustainable remediation schemes
Nicola Harries, CL:AIRE
11.15 – 11.30 Progress from last meeting
Nicola Harries, CL:AIRE
11.30 – 11.50 Conceptualisation of SuRF framework - How the framework fits into policy
Richard Boyle, HCA
11.50 – 12.30 Final Framework – presentation of framework with worked examples
Frank Evans, National Grid & Jonathan Smith, Shell Global Solutions
12.30 – 1.00 Discussion Mark Rolls
1.00 – 2.00 Lunch & Networking
2.00 – 2.05 Award presentation Nicola Harries, CL:AIRE
2.05 – 2.20 Summary of Final Draft Documentation Jonathan Smith, Shell Global Solutions
2.20 – 2.35 SuRF Phase 2 including potential research areas
Paul Bardos, r3 Environmental Technology Ltd
2.35 – 2.55 Discussion and Commitment Frank Evans
2.55 – 3.10 WRAP UP Mark Rolls, Chair
3.10 – 4.00 Coffee & Networking
SUSTAINABLE REMEDIATION FORUM UK (SuRF UK)
Phase 1 Final
PROGRESS FROM LAST MEETINGNicola Harries
CL:AIRE
1 www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
RECAP
• Meeting held in June 2007 - to discuss idea• Funding secured in January 08 from English
Partnerships now HCA• Steering Group set up to drive initiative forward• Aims & Objectives and Mission Statement
developed• Subsequent meetings May 08, Nov 08 and today
2 www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
PROGRESS
• Thank you to all of you who have attended these Open Forums
• Over half have attended all 4 meetings• Your contributions have been invaluable• Aim to deliver draft framework report end of April 09• Transparent process consultation all the way• Notes, consultation responses (anonymised) &
presentations to be uploaded onto the CL:AIRE website
3 www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
PROGRESS SINCE LAST MEETING• Consultation period was extended to 5th January
2009 with an additional 9 people responding – 30 total.
• Additional consultees confirmed previous responses and agree SG moving in right direction.
• Constructive comments about SuRF UK Mission Statement.
• Frank Evans – will discuss in later presentation.
4 www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
PROGRESS SINCE LAST MEETINGMission Statement :
To “Develop a framework in order to embed balanced decision making in the selection of the remediation strategy to address land contamination as an integral part of sustainable development”.
Explanatory words:1) Working mission statement2) Framework has specific meaning as a word3) Balanced decision making in terms of Sustainable means Social - Economic - Environmental4) Land Contamination has no statutory meaning and include decision making on groundwater issues
associated with land contamination.5) Development used in global sense not with narrow meaning of 'Building houses' and includes sustainable
land-use
5 www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
PROGRESS• Consultation all the way• Steering Group do listen to your comments & value
your points raised:1.Engage with Planning Community : Meeting with RTPI
arranged and liasing with CLG Planning2.Concentrate on remediation strategy and technology
selection. Hopefully Richard’s and Frank’s talk will explain why we need to not only focus on remediation processes but this remains our main focus.
6 www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
PROGRESS• Engagement with Planning Community. Meeting
already set up with RTPI• Further Engagement with Local Authorities.
Already presented to LACORS (Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services) and in discussion with EP UK. All want to review final framework.
• Further engagement with EA Policy, CLG & DEFRA needed
• Further engagement with NICOLE Sustainable Remediation Working Group & SuRF US
7 www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
PROGRESS – NEXT STAGE
• Voluntary – How to get buy in ?• SuRF UK continuing to engage with relevant parties
e.g EA (policy), DEFRA, CLG, HCA, Planning and Local Authorities.
• Indicators – Phase 2. Already started.
8 www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
INDICATOR ASSESSMENTS
• >110 references to be reviewed by March 31st 2009• About half of these have been “mapped” so far to
understand their coverage of economic, environmental and social elements of sustainability, organised as 18 “headlines”– Rest to be finished asap
• 105 indicators suggested on Nov 18th have been mapped– Economic: 38 – Environmental: 31 – Social: 36
HEADLINES
Environmental Economic Social1.Impacts on air2.Impacts on water 3.Impacts on soil 4.Impacts on ecology 5.Intrusiveness 6.Resource use and waste
1.Direct costs and direct economic benefits2.Indirect costs and indirect economic benefits 3.Gearing 4.Employment / human capital 5.Life-span and “project risks”6.Flexibility
1.Community involvement and community satisfaction 2.Human Health3.Ethical and equity considerations 4.Impacts on neighbourhoods or regions5.Fit with planning and policy strategies and initiatives 6.Uncertainty and evidence
NEXT STAGES• Framework will be drafted up and circulated for final
review initially to those of you who offered assistance back in May 08 and then “Open Consultation” through CL:AIRE e-alert system.
• Request for case studies to use the framework will go out to those individuals who offered assistance back in May 08. Others always welcome.
• Looking at ways we can upload case studies onto the website as examples.
13
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
Conceptualisation of SuRF UK Framework
- How it can fit into Policy
Presented on behalf of SuRF UK by
Dr Richard BoyleBrownfield Technical ConsultantHomes & Communities Agency
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk1
Aims and Contents of Presentation
PlanetENVIRONMENT
SUSTAINABLE
ProfitECONOMICS
PeopleSOCIAL
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk2
• Aims– Show how:
• SuRF UK Framework is already considered at a higher level
• Planning Policy– Crash-course in planning– Contaminated land in planning
• Sustainable Policies– Code for Sustainable Homes
• Conclusions with an Example
Planning Policy
PlanetENVIRONMENT
SUSTAINABLE
ProfitECONOMICS
PeopleSOCIAL
• Planning Policy– Crash-course in planning
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk3
Planning Policy For Beginners (1)
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk4
• “Old” planning policy aimed to avoid demonstrable harm. The LPA needed to show that there will not be unavoidable consequences from any development.
• New planning policy still follows this line, but aims to encourage development to deliver positive outcomes.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION & IMPROVEMENT
SUSTAINABLE PLANNING
ECONOMIC SUCCESS
SOCIAL COHESION
Requires respect of all three agendas.The onus is transferred to the applicant to provide the justification.
Planning Policy For Beginners (2)
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk5
National
National Planning Policy• Takes European influences (e.g.
Directives)• Set out infrastructure needs at the
national level, e.g. Housing Green Paper stated 3 million houses by 2020, 60% (1.8m) on brownfield
• Supplemented by Planning Policy Statements (PPS) (former Planning Policy Guidance (PPG))
• “Short, clear, positive”
England & Wales
Planning Policy For Beginners (3)
England & Wales
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk6
National
Regional
Regional Spatial Strategy• Follows on from National guidance• Set out broad planning visions to
“highlight regional diversity and local distinctiveness”
• Sets out, amongst other things, how many houses and how much employment land are needed and where they should be placed
• Statutory, so requires formal public consultation, and needs sign off by Secretary of State
Planning Policy For Beginners (4)
England & Wales
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk7
National
Regional
Local
Core Strategies and Local Development Frameworks• Visions for the future “Short,
strategic, positive and up-to-date”• Core Strategy and Local
Development Frameworks overarching plans. May be supplemented by Area Action Plans. Additional plans:
– SHLAA– Employment Studies– Local Brownfield Strategy
• Sites become “Allocated” for a particular use
Planning Policy For Beginners (5)
England & Wales
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk8
National
Regional
Local
Site
Site Master Planning• Planning Application (Detailed or
Outline) for desired end use. LPA more likely to grant if in line with Allocations.
• Applicant will have to set out how development will look and how it will built
• Applicant will also have to show development is sustainable
• Planning Consent, if granted, may have many Conditions
Planning Policy For Beginners (6)
England & Wales
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk9
National
Regional
Local
Site
Soc Econ Env
Soc Econ Env
Soc Econ Env
Soc Econ Env
Arguable Consideration of Sustainable Issues
Considered In M
ore Detail
Contaminated Land and Planning Policy
PlanetENVIRONMENT
SUSTAINABLE
ProfitECONOMICS
PeopleSOCIAL
• Outline:– Planning Policy related to
contaminated land
• Aims:– How contaminated land is
considered higher up the planning agenda
– How it is becoming more important.
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk10
Contaminated Land and Planning Policy
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk11
• PPS23 “Planning and Pollution Control”• Introduces the concepts:
– “Precautionary Principle”– That “any consideration of the quality of land … is capable of
being a material planning consideration”– Developer responsible for ensuring that there are no adverse
risks from contaminated land
Site
Local
Regional
National
• SHLAA and LBFS (Employment Studies?) take into consideration contaminated land when assessing sites as to their suitability for particular types of land use
• Planning Consents normally have Conditions linked to contaminated land to reinforce that the developer is responsible for managing risks
Contaminated Land and Planning Policy
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk12
• SHLAA and LBFS (Employment Studies?) take into consideration contaminated land when assessing sites as to their suitability for particular types of land use
• Wide range of topics are considered. The aim is to assess sitesto indicate whether constraints are so great that they actually could prevent development, for example:– Land is probably too contaminated– Site in Flood Zone 3
• Both could potentially preclude use for– Environmental reasons– Cost reasons– Social reasons
Site
Local
Regional
National
Sustainable Policies
PlanetENVIRONMENT
SUSTAINABLE
ProfitECONOMICS
PeopleSOCIAL
• Sustainable Policies– Code for Sustainable Homes
• Aim:– To consider how SuRF UK
could fit
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk13
Code for Sustainable Homes• In 2004, more than a quarter of the UK’s
carbon dioxide emissions came from the energy we use to heat, light and run our homes.
• Code for Sustainable Homes– Ensures that homes are built in a way that
minimises the use of energy and reduces these harmful emissions.
– 9 broad “Design Categories”
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk14
– Rating system – one ( ) to six ( ) stars• (1 star) is the entry level – above the level of Building Regulations:
Approved Document L (2006) – ‘Conservation of Fuel and Power.’• (6 stars) reflects a “zero carbon home”
• Moving target – amended every October to take into consideration new advances in technology and developability
• Remediation has been thought about
Conclusions with an Example
PlanetENVIRONMENT
SUSTAINABLE
ProfitECONOMICS
PeopleSOCIAL
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk16
Flooding and Planning Policy
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk17
• Pragmatic and flexible approach is needed to control development in areas affected by flood risk.
• There is an inevitable clash between flooding and the regeneration agenda– Old urban areas requiring regeneration are often along rivers and are
in areas of higher flood risk• Flood risk is applied at every stage of the process
• Is this the framework to aim for?
Site
Local
Regional
National
– Aim is to avoid flooding where possible and manage it where unavoidable
– FRA incorporated into sustainability appraisal
Conclusions
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk18
• Planning Policy– Still maturing / evolving and is still being
implemented around the country• Sustainable Policies
– Code for Sustainable Homes still maturing / evolving
• There is an opportunity!– Environmental issues, such as
contaminated land and remediation needs, are considered higher up the planning “pyramid”.
– How and when remediation is carried out is becoming more important.
– There appears to be a direct comparison with flooding that we can follow.
– We need to grasp the opportunity to make a difference!
PlanetENVIRONMENT
SUSTAINABLE
ProfitECONOMICS
PeopleSOCIAL
SuRF UK Framework: Final draft for comment
Frank EvansJonathan Smith
(SuRF UK Steering Group)
1 www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
Outline of Presentation
• Definition of Sustainable Remediation• Generic SuRF-UK Framework
– Overlaps with CLR11– Brownfield redevelopment– Unsustainable decisions– Operational land– Land restoration projects
• Terminology: Core & Non-core• Brownfield redevelopment example• Operational land example
2 www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
What is Sustainable Remediation?
(Working) SURF-UK Definition:
…the practise of demonstrating, in terms of environmental, economic and social indicators, that an acceptable balance exists between the effects of undertaking the remediation activities and the benefits the same activities will deliver.
3 www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
Feedback on Definition
83% - Agreed7% - Disagreed
• 30 opinions/responses2 – Strongly Disagree0 – Disagree3 – No View16 – Agreed9 – Strongly Agreed
4 www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
Some views on definition
• 'the issue is optimising not balancing‘• Optimising’ suggested as a term to include
• Caution: 'balance suggest equal weighting‘• Caution at word balance since implies trade-off
• ‘acceptable’ [is an important term to include]• Caution at word acceptable
• Human health should be explicitly mentioned in the definition
• Include good governance and sound science
5 www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
What is Sustainable Remediation?
…the practise of demonstrating, in terms of environmental, economic and social indicators, that an acceptable balance exists between the effects of undertaking the remediation activities and the benefits the same activities will deliver.
1) Perhaps it should be an optimal balance?2) Perhaps is should be a net benefit?
6 www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
Recap on Framework needs• Look of a framework: flow diagram• Core and non-core aspects• Operational and Brownfield land• A fit with CLR11, but wider in scope/timescale• Tierred approach• Able to dovetail with Town & Country Planning, Code for
Sustainable Homes• Contracting arrangements• Capture both…
– Remediation implementation (options appraisal stage)– Consideration of remediation issues earlier in design/planning
stage
7 www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
Previous work: SURF Assessment Points?
Town & Country Planning Stages
CORE ASPECTS
Remediation: Design and implementation(CLR11 Stages)
NON-CORE ASPECTS
Overlap with Code for Sustainable Homes
Regional SpatialPlanning
Local planning (site-level)
Risk Assessment
Options appraisal
Strategy implementation
Consider SURF when zoning land
SURF assess land-use options
SURF assess at risk assessment to aid effective data collation
SURF assess different remedial options
SURF assess tender returnsVerify
?Needs further thought
8 www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
Generic SuRF-UK Framework
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk9
Is the wider project design set?
MILESTONE:Project design set
TASK: Use remediation design to influence sustainability of detailed project objectives and design
MILESTONE: Establish a sustainable remediation strategy to embed within the project design
TASK: Select most Sustainable remedial Option to deliver project objectives
MILESTONE: CompleteRemedial Options Appraisal
Glass ceiling
No
Wider project design (Core)stage
Yes
Remediation Implementation only(Non-core)
Generic SuRF-UK Framework• At highest-level, there are two key stages in making sustainable
remediation decisions– During the project design phase– At point of implementing the remediation aspects of the design
– The project design phase normally is completed by a fixed milestone
• This milestone represents a ‘glass ceiling’i.e. once complete there is little chance to go back up the process to influence the sustainability of the project.
• After this milestone, only the remedial options can be influenced• This ‘glass ceiling’ is the point of separation between core and
non-core
10 www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
Generic SuRF-UK Framework
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk11
Is the wider project design set?
MILESTONE:Project design set
TASK: Use remediation design to influence sustainability of detailed project objectives and design
MILESTONE: Establish a sustainable remediation strategy to embed within the project design
TASK: Select most Sustainable remedial Option to deliver project objectives
MILESTONE: CompleteRemedial Options Appraisal
Glass ceiling
No
Wider project design (Core)stage
Yes
Remediation Implementation only(Non-core)
SuRF-UK Framework: CLR11 overlaps
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk12
Is the wider project design set?
MILESTONE:Project design set
TASK: Use remediation design to influence sustainability of detailed project objectives and design
MILESTONE: Establish a sustainable remediation strategy to embed within the project design
TASK: Select most Sustainable remedial Option to deliver project objectives
MILESTONE: CompleteRemedial Options Appraisal
Glass ceiling
No
CLR11Stages:
Risk Assessment&RemedialOptionsAppraisal
Yes
CLR11 Stage:
Remedial OptionsAppraisal
Site-specific Brownfield redevelopmentWhat ‘planning’ status does site have?
MILESTONE: Zoned on local plan or outline planning permission for a preferred end-use
TASK: Use remediation design to influence sustainability of detailed project design and site layout
MILESTONE: Detailed Planning permission for preferred end-use
MILESTONE: Establish a sustainable remediation strategy to support the project or development
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk13
TASK: Select most Sustainable remedial option
MILESTONE: CompleteRemedial Options Appraisal
Glass ceiling
Remediation and verification
SuRF-UK: Unsustainable decisionsYes
Is the wider project design set?
MILESTONE:Project design set
TASK: Use remediation design to influence sustainability of detailed project objectives and design
MILESTONE: Establish a sustainable remediation strategy to embed within the project design
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk14
TASK: Select most Sustainable remedial Option to deliver project objectives
MILESTONE: CompleteRemedial Options Appraisal
No
Glass ceiling
Sustainable= progress
Unsustainable
Progress but recordDecision against wider benefits
Challenge projectdesign
Sustainable= progress
Unsustainable
Progress but recordDecision against wider benefits
Type of remediation project
• Brownfield Redevelopment– Remedial strategy is only part
of wider project-design– Given lifetime impacts of the
project, the remediation stage is only likely to represent a small % of sustainability benefit and impacts
– Unsustainable remediation schemes may progress due to wider project benefits
• Operational land• Large restoration schemes
– The need to remediate is the project driver
– The remedial strategy is the wider project design
– Lifetime impacts are limited to the remediation stage and represent majority % of the sustainability benefits and impacts
15 www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
Type of remediation project
Brownfield Redevelopment
Remediation
Wider project design
Remediation is much greater % of scheme
Operational land and Large restoration schemes
Wider project design
16 www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
Operational land & land restoration schemes
Is the wider project design set?
MILESTONE:Project design set
TASK: Use remediation design to influence sustainability of detailed project objectives and design
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk17
MILESTONE: Establish a sustainable remediation strategy to embed within the project design
TASK: Select most Sustainable remedial Option to deliver project objectives
MILESTONE: CompleteRemedial Options Appraisal
Glass ceiling
Yes
No
Wider project design (Core)stage
Remediation Implementation only(Non-core)
Operational land & land restoration schemes
Is the wider project design set?
MILESTONE:Project design set
TASK: Use remediation design to influence sustainability of detailed project objectives and design
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk18
MILESTONE: Establish a sustainable remediation strategy to embed within the project design
TASK: Select most Sustainable remedial Option to deliver project objectives
MILESTONE: CompleteRemedial Options Appraisal
Glass ceiling
No
Wider project design (Core)stage
Remediation Implementation only(Non-core)
Site-specific: Operational Land
Operational site: Risk identified via monitoring or stock reconciliation
TASK: Establish a sustainable remediation strategy to support management of site risks
MILESTONE: Detailed Remediation strategy agreed with regulator
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk19
TASK: Select most Sustainable remedial option
MILESTONE: CompleteRemedial Options Appraisal
Glass ceiling
Remediation and verification
Site-specific: Large Restoration Schemes
Former industrial site to be restored, e.g. former colliery, coking works, steel works
TASK: Establish a sustainable remediation strategy to support restoration
MILESTONE: Detailed Remediation strategy agreed with regulator
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk20
TASK: Select most Sustainable remedial option
MILESTONE: CompleteRemedial Options Appraisal
Glass ceiling
Remediation and verification
Terminology (replace) Options
Core Non-coreIndirect Direct
Preceding decisions Remedy selection onlyDevelopment-stage Remediation-Stage
Project RemediationProject-Design stage Remediation stage
Glass ceiling – explains concept – is it right term?
21 www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk22
Start: define decision to be made, and
degrees of freedomTIERED FRAMEWORK
Decision on relative sustainability
of options?
Qualitative assessment
DecisionDecision
Decision
Quantitative (simple)assessment (e.g. MCA)
Quantitative (complex) Assessment (e.g. CBA)
Decision on relative sustainability
of options?
Decision on relative sustainability
of options?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No No
No
Option: Entry tier
Regional spatial planning
Remediation considered alongside other relevant issues in assessing sustainable (re)development,
and avoidance of new risks by locating hazards away from receptors to prevent need for future remediation
TYPICALLY QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
Efficient SI to develop conceptual model for risk-assessment, and
avoid introducing new risks.QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
Efficient SI to verify remediation, and avoid introducing new risks.SuRF-UK assumptions checked.
QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
Local planning
Risk assessment VerificationOptions
appraisal
CLR11 processSpatial planning (T&C planning)
Example 1: Petrol station remediation
• Core objective– Use: continued storage and sale of fuels– Remediate to manage risks associated with fuel release
• Approach– Use cost-benefit assessment to help design
• Remedial strategy• Remediation technology selection
– Straight to C-B Analysis• Considered a range of Env, Econ and Soc costs and benefits, but
was not a complete SuRF-UK assessment
27 www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
Decision points
• C-B assessment used to inform:– Location of compliance point in fully-licensed aquifer
• Closest borehole abstraction ~ 3 km• River ~ 200m• EA objective to protect resource potential
– 50m, 100m, GW valuation-based– Technology selection
• Single technique to achieve remedial goal(s)• Treatment trains (engineered rem + polishing phase)
28 www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
Remediation options considered
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk29
Option No. Option
N1 Do Nothing
MNA MNA
S1 In-situ Bio Stimulation using slow release oxidant
S2 Total Fluids Extraction
S3 ISCO
S4 Dual Phase Extraction
S5 Air Sparge and SVE to reduce site product concentrations
S6 Excavation and Landfilling
Option No. Option
P(S)1 Edge of site Air Sparge and SVE barrier system
P(OS)2Off-site Bio-Stimulation using Slow
release Oxygen Technique along plume transect
P(OS)3 Off-site (plume) Air Sparge and SVE barrier system
P(OS)4Off-site (Plume) Total Fluids
Extraction - Groundwater Interception
R1 End of pipe treatment
Example: External Costs
CO2 NOX PM HGV(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (miles)
N1 - - - - MNA 5.2 0.2 - - S1 9.6 0.3 - - S2 93.6 98.3 9.0 - S3 7.8 0.2 - - S4 68.9 0.9 21.0 - S5 68.9 2.3 47.0 - S6 45.5 0.4 - 24 192.0 P(S)1 441.7 11.2 71.0 - P(OS)2 5.2 0.8 - - P(OS)3 220.9 5.6 71.0 - P(OS)4 271.9 7.0 43.0 - R1 33.0 0.9 285.0 -
Additionally included• Aquifer value• Property value• Internal cost
Excluded (pre-SuRF-UK!)• PR and reputation• Legal / enforcement expenses• Other social (e.g. disruption)• Employment• Resource use (water,
aggregate)
30 www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
Outcome
• Compliance point location– 200m to river; 100m for GW resource
• Benefits of LNAPL source removal outweigh costs– LNAPL and UZ source removal by DPVE and SVE to target of
50mg/l TPH in groundwater• Further active remediation has C/B >1
– Do nothing (the minimum C/B)– Oxidant release - biostimulation– MNA
• MNA the preferred solution taking account of un-costed elements, such as reputation and risk of enforcement action
• MNA analysis report accepted by EA in Feb 2009
31 www.claire.co.uk/surfuk
Content
• Project objectives• Legislative and CLR 11 context• SuRF-UK framework• SuRF-UK Phase 1 report
– Content – Style– Timescales
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk2
Reminder: framework requirements
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk3
• Practical and reasonable• Applicable at range of scales / planning points
– spatial planning (regional and site), – remedial objective setting, – technology selection
• Tiered approach to analysis– Qualitative (data from published sources) – Quantitative (range of simple to more complex tools)
• Accepted by key stakeholders and consistent with regulatory requirements– Draw on existing EA methods - no desire to reinvent wheels– Awareness of SuRF-US where policy and regulatory frames are
compatible
Legislative contextSustainable development in remediation:
– Planning Policy Statement 1 and 23 - underpin sustainable development through planning and development process
– Env. Act 1995 (s4) requires environment agencies to ‘contribute to the goal of achieving sustainable development’
– Env. Act 1995 (s39) – environment agencies required to ‘take account of the likely costs and benefits’ in enforcing powers
– Env. Prot. Act 1990, Part IIa – Test for reasonableness, best practicable technique (Part IIA Stat. Guidance C51)
– EU Water FD – achieve good status unless ..infeasible ..disproportionate cost ..and the preferred solution is considered best balance of social, economic and environmental costs [i.e. sustainable]
– Draft EU Soil Protection Framework Dir. (Feb 2009)– ‘Remediation shall consist of actions on the soil...due consideration to social, economic and environmental impacts…’
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk4
SuRF-UK aims to be suitable for:
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk5
• Planning decisions• Voluntary remediation• WRA91 Works Notice enforcement• Contaminated land regime: Part IIa / Part III
• Local and regional-scale development decisions
• EU Soil FD (as currently drafted)
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk6
1. Verification should be designed to maximise efficiency of data collection.2. Verification should include post-treatment analysis of the assumptions made in the options SuRF-UK appraisal stage
Options Appraisal should include:
1. An assessment of the relative sustainability of undertaking source treatment, pathway interception or receptor modification to manage unacceptable risks.
2. A sustainability assessment of different remedial technologies / techniques to achieve risk-based goals
1. Site characterisation should be designed to maximise efficiency of data collection, and be focussed on improvement of conceptual site model.
2. Site characterisation should not introduce new hazards or pathways for transport of contaminants
Pre-CLR11 recommendations
Spatial planning considerations (Strategic, Local plans) should consider the impact of remediation alongside other relevant factors in order to identify sustainable use(s) of land, including options to minimize remediation and locate new hazardous activities away from human populations and aquifers etc;
National scale: Generic risk-assessment criteria should include an evaluation of the sustainability of achieving those generic standards
SuRF-UK report: Content
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk7
• Introduction• Legislative context• Relation to existing guidance• The SuRF-UK framework• Indicators for Sustainable Remediation• Interactions with other sustainable development
initiatives• References and supporting information
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk8
Start: define decision to be made, and
degrees of freedomTIERED FRAMEWORK
Decision on relative sustainability
of options?
Qualitative assessment
DecisionDecision
Decision
Quantitative (simple)assessment (e.g. MCA)
Quantitative (complex) Assessment (e.g. CBA)
Decision on relative sustainability
of options?
Decision on relative sustainability
of options?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No No
No
Option: Entry tier
Regional spatial planning
Remediation considered alongside other relevant issues in assessing sustainable (re)development,
and avoidance of new risks by locating hazards away from receptors to prevent need for future remediation
TYPICALLY QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
Efficient steps to develop conceptual model for risk-assessment, and
avoid introducing new risks.QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
Efficient steps to verify remediation, and avoid introducing new risks.SuRF-UK assumptions checked.
QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
Local planning
Risk assessment VerificationOptions
appraisal
CLR11 processSpatial planning (T&C planning)
SuRF-UK report: Style
• Approximately 20 page report– Clear and concise– Supported with flowcharts and figures
• Hyperlinked to other data and information sources• Freely available as a PDF file
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk9
SuRF-UK report: Timescales
• Final draft report due April 2009– Will allow consistent inclusion of Sust. Dev. criteria in
remedial decision making using existing tools• e.g. EA reports P238, P278, P279, P316
• SuRF-UK Phase 2 to follow– Improved metrics related to remediation activity
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk10
SuRF-UK report: Supporting deliverables
• Conference presentations– Sustainability Live (May 2009)– NICOLE Sustainable Rem. conference (June 2009)– NW Brownfield Regeneration Forum
• Trade magazine articles– Sustainable Communities, April 2009
• Other project funding– CONCAWE - €100k for collation of data on SD metrics
for petroleum HC remediation techniques
www.claire.co.uk/surfuk11
SuRF Open Forum Meeting – March 18th 2008
Phase 1 Final
Prof Paul Bardosr3 environmental technology ltd
www.r3environmental.com
1 www.claire.co.uk
Ambitions for future work
• Implementation of the framework• Develop a template for sustainability based decision making and
reporting• Guidance for what is considered (indicators)• Tool box (sustainability assessment tools)• Case studies• On-line availability• Support (at least morally) academic research
3 www.claire.co.uk
Future work in detail (1)
• Implementation of the framework– Encourage case studies– Develop supporting tools– Develop framework for training
and continuing professional development
– Linkage with international developments: SURF US, NICOLE and Soil FD
• Template for decision making and reporting– Checklist of “inputs” –
information / indicators– Tiered approach– Specification of key outputs to be
reported
4 www.claire.co.uk
Future work in detail (2)
• Guidance on indicators• Under development, considering:
– >100 references currently under review, and being “mapped”
– Use this as a basis to decide next steps
– Key issue will be managing complexity
• Tool box– “Open access” catalogue of
assessment tools supplied by you (proprietary)
– Review of different techniques (approaches)
– Link to case studies– Issue may be verification /
validation of tools?
5 www.claire.co.uk
Future work in detail (2)
• Case studies– “open access” catalogue of case
studies supplied by you– Use a standard template
• Project solutions?• Decision making?
– Link to EURODEMO+ to be considered
– Need for verification / validation?
• On-line implementation desired• Academic research
– The future?– SURF UK want an open
approach: “bottom up” collection of ideas – from you
6 www.claire.co.uk
Academic Research Questions
• What is your view on the wider needs for sustainable remediationresearch? – e.g. measurement approaches, metrics, valuation approaches, green
technology development etc• What are your specific research interests and how do they link to these
wider needs?• How could an end-user statement from SURF-UK assist you in making
grant applications?• How could SURF-UK help you with dissemination and making
introductions? • Any other comments?
7 www.claire.co.uk
Academic Questionnaire Responses so far
• Five Reponses received• 1 Research needs
– Methods / metrics research• Most feel work is needed / some feel there is a problem of industry
uptake or skills shortages– Sustainable “extensive” remediation technologies
• 2 Your interests– “Soft” / “gentle remediation” / skills / sustainability “measurement”
• 3 End-user statement– Generally seen as desirable to (a) demonstrate need and (b) provide a
“benchmark”• Help from SURF-UK
– Networking, a major conference, dissemination, involvement of SG members in research proposal development
• Other comments– UK should have been in the SNOWMAN 2 proposal (incl biofuels on
contaminated land); provide a link to European and international work
8 www.claire.co.uk
Phase 1 Output = Framework
Start: define decision to be made, and
degrees of freedomTIERED FRAMEWORK
Decision on relative sustainability
of options?
Qualitative assessment
DecisionDecision
Decision
Quantitative (simple)assessment (e.g. MCA)
Quantitative (complex) Assessment (e.g. CBA)
Decision on relative sustainability
of options?
Decision on relative sustainability
of options?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No No
No
Option: Entry tier
Regional spatial planning
Remediation considered alongside other relevant issues in assessing sustainable (re)development,
and avoidance of new risks by locating hazards away from receptors to prevent need for future remediation
TYPICALLY QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
Efficient SI to develop conceptual model for risk-assessment, and
avoid introducing new risks.QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
Efficient SI to verify remediation, and avoid introducing new risks.SuRF-UK assumptions checked.
QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
Local planning
Risk assessment VerificationOptions
appraisal
CLR11 processSpatial planning (T&C planning)
9 www.claire.co.uk